These personal impressions of the international Tribunal on Crimes Against Women were written by one of the Italian members of the ISIS collective.

"I consider this meeting to be a great historical event. In contrast to that of Mexico City where some women sent by political parties and governments tried only to get women integrated into male society, you are meeting here to denounce the oppression suffered by women. In order to fight this oppression women have been meeting for a long time in many countries. But these different groups hardly knew about each other: for the first time they are meeting each other".

These are the words of Simone de Beauvoir written to the women meeting at the Palais de Congres in Brussels from 4 to 8 March 1976. An historical event. The first international political appearance of women and only women, decided upon and organized by women only.

It's not easy to say what has come out of this meeting: there were several thousand participants, the majority of whom were in the hall listening to the testimonies. But a great many women were also in the corridors, in small rooms, in restaurants or in the three large halls made available to us just outside the palais, having small group discussions.

Signs all over the place announced . "Those interested in working on an international information bulletin please meet at 4 in the hall to the right of the entrance". "Those who wants to talk about rape meet us at the restaurant at 3", or even "The group of unmarried mothers are meeting at 6 in the bathroom", not to mention the infinite number of films and videotapes being projected in every corner or the self-help group that worked from ten in the morning to ten at night without stopping.

In short, an enormous party above all else, where the joy of finding ourselves among only women many of them with their children, all more or less in agreement, all being simply themselves, without masks, without being ashamed to talk about our problems was added to the joy of seeing new faces and hearing new experiences and new ideas. But to say what new was born out of this meeting isn't easy: because there weren't any things like rules or regulations, it was hard to keep track of everything. Twenty things were happening at once.

So I can only say how I saw and experienced things there in a very personal way and subject to my own tastes and interests.

I have to say that I do not agree with the reports that appeared in the Italian newspapers: in newspapers it sounded like the women meeting in Brussels decided that feminism is a lot of rubbish and that they were only concerned about class struggle. On the opposite extreme, it sounded like just the opposite. Let me say that the problem of how much the oppression of women is linked to social, political and economic factors was raised by the Tribunal and it was the first problem we struggled with.

The first day passed rather smoothly. On the stage the organizers called the women who had registered to speak one by one and gave them a certain number of minutes  to speak. The testimonies were almost all descriptions of personal experiences which did not touch on what type of society permitted or encouraged these nor why. In the evening some women from the Spanish groups took the microphone and occupied the stage to protest the way in which the Tribunal was going.

"I protest against the Tribunal because:

- it is being limited to denouncing the crimes committed against women without analyzing the causes nor planning a strategy to defend ourselves against these crimes;

- because some women have been delegated to organize it for all of us:

- and because these women are white, bourgeois and from Anglo-Saxon countries and therefore represent that part of the world which exploits the rest".

I found myself in agreement with this protest.

Stating the crimes, one after the other, without trying to interpret them is useful only in making other people aware of the situation. But by now everybody knows that the problems of abortion and contraception exist. For a whole day it was pretty sterile and boring. I felt it would be much more interesting, although undoubtedly more difficult, to attempt a political analysis and a solution.

The second day was spent discussing two problems: to limit ourselves to denouncing the crimes or to push for a political, social and economic analysis; and how to organize the Tribunal practically, whether or not to reject completely the well organized and rational program prepared by the organizing committee and if so, what to substitute it with.

I must say that while I felt sure how I would respond to the first problem, the second one left me in much doubt: I don't like organization.

Organization means Aristotelian logic, masculine logic, smothering fantasies, individual initiatives and creativity.

But lack of organization often means chaos and I have seen more than one feminist meeting end up in nothing without having reached any conclusion because even a little self-discipline was rejected.

The meeting in Brussels succeeded in arriving at a compromise: on the third, fourth and fifth days the organizers were no longer sitting on the stage, nobody followed the organized programs (even if the proposed subjects had been carefully planned) and there was no confusion at all.

Spontaneously all the women who had testimonies on a specific argument met each other; and always spontaneously, the woman who was able to organize started to plan and nobody felt offended. Spontaneously, women who came to speak and realized their speech was not of great interest, stopped speaking.

Interesting and sincere speeches were applauded and uninteresting ones whistled at. I found all that extremely important: it was a great success to be productive while respecting our time limits and our different ways of acting; without being rigid in the ways prescribed by a patriarchal society. One of the important themes of feminism has always been the rejection of delegating responsibility and power to someone else.

But often this rejection has meant chaos and the impossibility to get anything done. Brussels demonstrated that it is possible to find a third way. Some themes took more time than usual. The women from oppressed minority groups were especially applauded: a black South African and a black woman from the USA, an Australian, an American Indian. In their testimonies they spoke not only about their oppression as women, but also their oppression as a race. They spoke also for the men in their  countries and it was clear that these two oppression had the same sources, that it was impossible to fight against one without fighting against the other.

No one protested when the women from India, Iran and Chile spoke on behalf of their men too. However, all this was interpreted by the press as the same old concept that what is important is the class struggle and all the rest will follow. This is an incorrect and forced interpretation.

What the women from the so-called developing countries were saying is that they do not accept the good faith of rich American feminists who exploit black maids. They were certainly not saying that they considered feminism secondary to the problem of racism. On the other hand the American women said that feminism in the USA is in a moment of impasse precisely because they have not succeeded in developing an analysis or criticism of a capitalist society. According to one of the American women only the reformist feminists in the USA (such as NOW) are succeeding on a practical political level.

The others limit themselves to working on specific problems: a self-help clinic or a rape center, a newspaper etc. But all these activities are easily absorbed into the system and do not substantially change anything in American society.

According to one of the American women, the feminists in the USA did an excellent job in the first phase of feminism, the development of techniques of consciousness raising. But they have not succeeded in taking the second step; i.e., organizing themselves politically to change the structures of society which permit the exploitation of women. Or as an English lawyer who defends battered women said: "How in hell can there be people who make a feminist revolution without revolutionizing the whole world? "